Yesterday I heard a clip on the radio of Michael Steele debating a democrat representative on this idea of empathy in judges that President Obama has been talking about. It was frustrating to listen to, and I kept wanting Mr. Steele to ask the question of his opponent: what is the blindfold for on the figure of Justice? Just ask that, a simple question and then wait for an answer. It’s so difficult to get anywhere however in these rapid fire debates and they are mainly there for entertainment value not edification. What’s the blindfold for? Answer: It’s a symbolic, not a literal element, and it is there to convey an idea. The idea being that justice should be blind. The question follows, blind to what? This is the point that Mr. Steele should have pushed and prodded with until he received some kind of an answer. Blind to what? Prager has often reminded us on his show that in Judaic law the judge is forbidden to show favoritism to the poor man. So the answer of course is that justice is to be blind to empathy. Empathy, that very quality that Obama has been arguing for is in fact at odds with the concept of justice. Obama must know this but he is cynically trying to sell this idea of empathy which sounds so wonderful to those who don’t think too clearly, so that he can obtain ‘social justice’ which is merely code for redistribution of wealth. Obama wants to favor the poor man. And the single mother, and the gay man, and the elderly woman, and on and on and on. The fact that this seriously undermines the rule of law seems not to matter to him.